2009 (11) TMI 8 - AT - Service Tax

Demand on the basis of not providing the break-up value of the taxable service along with documentary evidence to prove the claim regarding payment of S. Tax appellant submits that there is no short levy as held and that they shall be able to reconcile the service tax payable for each category of services for the months of December 2003 and March, 2004 and show that the correct amounts have been deposited and mistake, if any, is only technical in nature in paying the service tax by a combined challan - held that set aside the order of the Commissioner and remand the matter for fresh consideration after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in service tax payment for Lease Line Circuit services.
2. Request for remand for fresh consideration.
3. Decision on the appeal and stay petition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant provided services under 'Lease Line Circuit' and 'Telegraph and Telex services', filing ST-3 returns for the quarters ending December 2003 and March 2004. The original authority demanded Rs.8,60,225 for the Lease Line Circuit services due to a discrepancy in duty payment, as the service tax paid was shown under the telegraph and telex category. The appellant failed to provide a breakdown of the taxable service value with supporting evidence, leading to the demand confirmation.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that there was no short levy and expressed confidence in reconciling the service tax amounts for each service category for the relevant quarters. They requested a remand for fresh consideration, citing a technical error in paying service tax through a combined challan. The authorized departmental representative did not object to this proposal.

3. Considering the submissions, the tribunal, through Member (Technical), set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for a reevaluation, granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The appellant was instructed to submit written arguments and documentary evidence to the Commissioner within one month from the order's receipt. The appeal was allowed through remand, and the stay petition was also disposed of, facilitating a fresh review of the case.